The Official 3D Thread

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

What was your favorite 3D film of 2011?

Hugo
1
50%
Sex and Zen 3D - Extreme Ecstasy
1
50%
Cave of Forgotten Dreams
0
No votes
The Adventures of Tintin
0
No votes
TT3D: Closer to the Edge
0
No votes
A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas
0
No votes
None, fuck 3D!
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 2

The Official 3D Thread

Postby Theta on Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:28 pm

So, James Cameron is on the stump again for 3D digital cinema.

James Cameron wrote:"We're in a fight for survival here. Maybe we just need to fight back harder, come out blazing, not wither away and die. D-cinema can do it, for a number of reasons, but because d-cinema is an enabling technology for 3-D. Digital 3-D is a revolutionary form of showmanship that is within our grasp. It can get people off their butts and away from their portable devices and get people back in the theaters where they belong. We're so scared of piracy right now that we're ready to pimp out our mothers, this whole day-and-date DVD release nonsense? Here's an answer: (Digital cinema is) one of the strongest reasons I've been pushing 3-D for the past few years because it offers a powerful experience which you can only have in the movie theater."


Leaving aside how this doesn't fit basic economics (see my blog for THAT rant)...I'm kinda of two minds about this.

For SOME movies, like, say, James Cameron movies, I can see why 3D would be an interesting possible expansion. I'd be a lot more likely to care about effects movies if the effects were fully immersive.

But for, say, a comedy or a drama, especially ones done on a small scale...I don't see any real benefit or point to making it 3D, artistically. I don't think it'd help the director and it'd be a huge step backwards in terms of making filmmaking more democratic.

Thoughts? Abuse? Mindless worship of Cameron?
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Re: 3D Cinema

Postby MasterWhedon on Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:36 pm

Theta wrote:For SOME movies, like, say, James Cameron movies, I can see why 3D would be an interesting possible expansion. I'd be a lot more likely to care about effects movies if the effects were fully immersive.

But for, say, a comedy or a drama, especially ones done on a small scale...I don't see any real benefit or point to making it 3D, artistically. I don't think it'd help the director and it'd be a huge step backwards in terms of making filmmaking more democratic.

I posted this over in the Master Lucas thread about the "death" of the blockbuster:

MasterWhedon wrote:The blockbuster isn't going anywhere, it's just getting a little more exclusive.

Studios are going to start pulling back and only greenlighting two major blockbusters a piece a year instead of four, perhaps funneling the money they would have spent off into smaller films. Romantic comedies will flourish. Independent films will boom. The blockbuster will go nowhere.

This model will make the event movie an event again.

Basically, the big summer/winter event films will all go 3D, and will all be made for a great deal less than they are now.

Simple, small character pieces and more traditional dramas will still exist and will still be shown in theaters, likely with a day-and-date corresponding DVD release.

But the event movie WILL go 3D. Cameron is showing the way.
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: 3D Cinema

Postby Adam Balm on Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:46 pm

Theta wrote:
Leaving aside how this doesn't fit basic economics (see my blog for THAT rant)...I'm kinda of two minds about this.

For SOME movies, like, say, James Cameron movies, I can see why 3D would be an interesting possible expansion. I'd be a lot more likely to care about effects movies if the effects were fully immersive.

But for, say, a comedy or a drama, especially ones done on a small scale...I don't see any real benefit or point to making it 3D, artistically. I don't think it'd help the director and it'd be a huge step backwards in terms of making filmmaking more democratic.


I couldn't find the blog entry you're refering to, so I have no idea what's economical in this situation. However I think the phrase 'step backwards' is interesting, since the first thing I thought when I considered what small scale dramas would be like with 3D technology, was the theatre...

Stage plays are already 3D small scale dramas and comedies.
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Re: 3D Cinema

Postby Theta on Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:03 pm

Adam Balm wrote:
Theta wrote:
Leaving aside how this doesn't fit basic economics (see my blog for THAT rant)...I'm kinda of two minds about this.

For SOME movies, like, say, James Cameron movies, I can see why 3D would be an interesting possible expansion. I'd be a lot more likely to care about effects movies if the effects were fully immersive.

But for, say, a comedy or a drama, especially ones done on a small scale...I don't see any real benefit or point to making it 3D, artistically. I don't think it'd help the director and it'd be a huge step backwards in terms of making filmmaking more democratic.


I couldn't find the blog entry you're refering to, so I have no idea what's economical in this situation. However I think the phrase 'step backwards' is interesting, since the first thing I thought when I considered what small scale dramas would be like with 3D technology, was the theatre...

Stage plays are already 3D small scale dramas and comedies.


Basically, my argument on that score is most industries, if they saw sales declining and had a clear reason as to why, would get to work improving the product and getting services ship-shape. Instead, Hollywood wants fancy new (and really, not very well tested) projectors installed, and someone else to foot the bill for it.


By "huge step backward" I mean technologically. As a filmmaker, honestly, I don't want this useless goddamn gimmick. I can see this technology really making life hard on filmmakers; camera movement would have to be severely limited (at least at first), more money would have to go to sets and costumes because skimping would be more noticeable, and minor technical mistakes would become vastly more pronounced.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby TheBaxter on Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:33 pm

you all can have your 3d movies. i'll be relaxing on the beach in my holodeck.

i kind of think 3d will be useless for most films. and 3d cameras will probably be big and expensive and bulky, making it too difficult and expensive for indie filmmakers to use them. i guess they can use the same process on those movies that they're gonna use on star wars and that stuff. but it won't add anything really, and for smaller, non-event type films will probably just be a distraction. plus, i think they still require some kind of glasses or headset, and i don't really want to have to put on some kind of special equipment to watch the 40-year old virgin.

for event film, 3d will be neat for sure. but i don't see it having much of a future outside the big films. then again, people probably said the same thing about technicolor and "talkies" back in the day.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19250
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby Ribbons on Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:44 pm

I'm not a fan of the 3D, honestly. The novelty of it is cool and all, but I'm not so sure it actually improves the quality of one's filmgoing experience. I suppose that's subjective though.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13986
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby Adam Balm on Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:31 pm

TheBaxter wrote:you all can have your 3d movies. i'll be relaxing on the beach in my holodeck.



The holodeck will be the last invention of humanity.
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby Theta on Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:35 pm

Adam Balm wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:you all can have your 3d movies. i'll be relaxing on the beach in my holodeck.



The holodeck will be the last invention of humanity.


Second to last. The holodeck PORN program...THAT will be the last invention of humanity.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Adam Balm on Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:42 pm

Theta wrote:
Adam Balm wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:you all can have your 3d movies. i'll be relaxing on the beach in my holodeck.



The holodeck will be the last invention of humanity.


Second to last. The holodeck PORN program...THAT will be the last invention of humanity.


Touché, sir...
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby Nachokoolaid on Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:16 am

I'm all for this 3 technology, because as I understand it, it's not just some neat trick with color that requires glasses and it's done in camera. I wish I understood it better. The kind that Cameron's is speaking of is totally different, and actually enhances the experience. If Cameron, who has been around film for a while now, is so excited about this, wait until Joe Moviegoer sees this stuff. It's going to blow his mind.

I predict that this will be the norm in 20 years and everyone will be looking back on this time and questioning how we ever enjoyed film without the 3D component.
User avatar
Nachokoolaid
THE DORK KNIGHT
 
Posts: 5588
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Gotham City

Postby Tubbs Tattsyrup on Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:41 am

Theta wrote:
Adam Balm wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:you all can have your 3d movies. i'll be relaxing on the beach in my holodeck.



The holodeck will be the last invention of humanity.


Second to last. The holodeck PORN program...THAT will be the last invention of humanity.


Vulcan Love Slave Part II: The Revenge.

I love how evangelistic Cameron is being about 3D. He really has something there that he believes will reinvigorate cinema. The main problem is, though, that it's going to take quite a while to upgrade cinemas to the level that can play this new form of 3D. And I love that he's seeing it as simply a more immersive way of showing film, rather than as a cheap way of getting a "WHOA!", like the T-2 3D movie was (sorry Jim). I personally can't fucking wait.

The holodeck, though - that's something no home should be without.
On YouTube or Vimeo.
User avatar
Tubbs Tattsyrup
GRANDO CARLISSIAN
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:46 am
Location: the Local Shop

Re: 3D Cinema

Postby austenandrews on Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:02 am

Theta wrote:By "huge step backward" I mean technologically. As a filmmaker, honestly, I don't want this useless goddamn gimmick. I can see this technology really making life hard on filmmakers; camera movement would have to be severely limited (at least at first), more money would have to go to sets and costumes because skimping would be more noticeable, and minor technical mistakes would become vastly more pronounced.

I know it's a trite response, but I'm sure the same arguments were made for color films. The technology and craft will have to evolve, of course, and at first will be more suited to splashy spectacle movies. But it doesn't have to be just a gimmick, any more than color (or these days, B&W) or deep focus or CGI. It'll be another tool in the filmmaker's toolbox. Eventually rank-and-file directors & DPs will be conversant enough in the basics that it won't be conspicuous unless it needs to be.

Theta wrote:Basically, my argument on that score is most industries, if they saw sales declining and had a clear reason as to why, would get to work improving the product and getting services ship-shape. Instead, Hollywood wants fancy new (and really, not very well tested) projectors installed, and someone else to foot the bill for it.

Well, to be fair, studios will have to revamp to digital as well.

You're right that 3D is a big shift that's entirely tangential to improved quality. Alas Hollywood has never been about quality. However, I think you're mistaken that other industries view quality as the primary variable in stopping blood loss. Business is about profit and profit is about sales & marketshare. Improved quality means an increase in back-end expenses. Improved marketing gives you much more bang for the buck. And on the back-end, improved marketing is supported by more/different features to market.

As an example, while the auto industry does work on quality to increase sales, what it really wants is another SUV-like boom. Incremental steps in quality will always take a backseat to market booms. Hollywood is no different. Improving script development will increase the quality of the product, but 3D? That's an SUV boom.
User avatar
austenandrews
SUSAN CAGLE
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:45 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Postby brendonconnelly on Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:43 pm

Sorry. I had to delete this post.

Thanks.
Last edited by brendonconnelly on Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
brendonconnelly
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:51 am
Location: Oxford, England

Postby Adam Balm on Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:57 pm

brendonconnelly wrote:Sorry. I had to delete this post.

Thanks.


http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/howtopat.htm
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby Tubbs Tattsyrup on Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:17 pm

brendonconnelly wrote:Sorry. I had to delete this post.

Thanks.


Let us know how you go, if you manage to do what you're trying to do.
On YouTube or Vimeo.
User avatar
Tubbs Tattsyrup
GRANDO CARLISSIAN
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:46 am
Location: the Local Shop

Postby brendonconnelly on Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:23 pm

I now have the backing I need - believe it or not, in that short period of time - to give it a shot.
brendonconnelly
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:51 am
Location: Oxford, England

Re: 3D Cinema

Postby Theta on Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:29 pm

austenandrews wrote:I know it's a trite response, but I'm sure the same arguments were made for color films. The technology and craft will have to evolve, of course, and at first will be more suited to splashy spectacle movies. But it doesn't have to be just a gimmick, any more than color (or these days, B&W) or deep focus or CGI. It'll be another tool in the filmmaker's toolbox. Eventually rank-and-file directors & DPs will be conversant enough in the basics that it won't be conspicuous unless it needs to be.


A better analogy would be the sudden jump from silents to sound. First of all, the sound gear set the visuals back a good ten years. Secondly, anybody who's worked in sound design can tell you right now, the ear is much, much MUCH harder to fool than the eye. Thirdly, it required specialty soundstages and the like, vastly ramping up cost. Sound was and remains, for lack of a better term, a massive pain in the ass.

Unlike sound, though...I fail to see the benefit.

austenandrews wrote:
As an example, while the auto industry does work on quality to increase sales, what it really wants is another SUV-like boom. Incremental steps in quality will always take a backseat to market booms. Hollywood is no different. Improving script development will increase the quality of the product, but 3D? That's an SUV boom.


Well, I explain it better in my blog, but basically, the studios tell the theaters what to do. So if they wanted to improve services, all they really have to do is tell theaters to start throwing out cell phone users, Blackberry users, and people who bring whining babies to R-rated movies without a refund and they'd do it. Cost to them: $0. Improvement in customer satisfaction? High. Assholes on cell phones are, by far, the BIGGEST complaint I hear about from moviegoers of all stripes.

It wouldn't even cost the theater owners much (a nice change for them.) The ushers would love being able to ask customers to leave, and basically they'd just need to buy a big plastic sign to put next to the cashier.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Chairman Kaga on Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:58 pm

We need cell phone jamming signals in theaters.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Adam Balm on Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:01 am

Chairman Kaga wrote:We need cell phone jamming signals in theaters.


I would say it's only a matter of time, honestly.
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby havocSchultz on Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:12 am

Adam Balm wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:We need cell phone jamming signals in theaters.


I would say it's only a matter of time, honestly.


we need "stupid d00ches asking stupid fucking questions right behind havoc throughout the whole movie" Jamming Devices...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:27 am

I haven't really had much trouble with people talking to each other or on cellphones.....though my funniest film experience came from a women asking my father a question.
We went to see Van Helsing (which I hoped to be like The Mummy type fun rather than worse then The Scorpion King type fun) after the entire beginning Black and White sequence featuring Dracula and Dr. Frankenstein and the Monster and Igor and villagers chasing the Monster with torches and burning down the windmill full of absinthe this little old lady leans over to my father and asks
"What movie is this?" which had my father and I rolling on the floor. What the fuck movie could it be? After he told her she and her husband left as if they went into the wrong theater. After the movie we looked at everything else showing at the theater and tried to determine which movie she thought she was watching....we guessed she confsed it with New York Minute...
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

The Official 3D Thread (now w/ DotD 1978)

Postby Theta on Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:43 am

I hope "Avatar" and "Monsters and Aliens" fucking tank. Not because I think they're going to suck (well, maybe "Monsters VS. Aliens"), but because I hate this movement to replace 2D cinema with 3D cinema and everything it represents; greed, unnecessary technology, arrogance and the combination of which strangling theatrical distribution in America.

Quint's rant was pretty telling; everybody hates people who talk in the theater, and he even has strong evidence to back that up. What costs less; an entirely new projection process or a few extra minimum-wage ushers to enforce policies? So if you folks don't mind, I'm going to bust out the old saw and play it one more time.


First things first: the American public has pretty soundly rejected 3D. "Spy Kids 3D" only did okay because it was part of a popular franchise; but the retrofitted "Nightmare Before Christmas" tanked (although that's not stopping Disney from flogging it), and so did "Sharkboy and Lavagirl." I personally think that "Avatar" is going to be a fucking disaster because it's going to cost $315 million, and Cameron insisting it be 3D is going to ruin the DVD sales. Yes, I know "Titanic" is the highest-grossing movie of all time, but "Titanic" was expertly constructed to be a "four-sector" movie; you could pretty much take the whole family to it and they'd find something they'd like. "Avatar" is going to have a narrower audience. Don't get me wrong, I'll still show up to see it, but it astounds me anybody approved that budget.

I also think 3D is going to be resoundingly rejected because the vast majority of the American populace just doesn't want to wear glasses to watch a movie. I mean, that's just trotting around with your artifice hanging out; most filmmakers don't have the talent to get past that. Most movies, frankly, are not engrossing enough to make people forget they've got paper eyewear on their faces, and any movie that IS engrossing enough probably doesn't need it in the first place.


Here are a few questions I have NEVER heard in the entire discussion of 3D cinema: do movies need to be 3D in the first place? How does that change the medium artistically? Is it simply a technological advance, like sound, or does it create a whole new medium all together?

Last question first: it creates a whole new medium. Just like silent film has different language and grammar than sound film, so 3D film will need different language and grammar to differentiate itself from 2D film (not that I think this'll be forthcoming at first, not until the experimental types get their hands on it.) But just like CGI shouldn't replace traditional animation, so 3D film shouldn't replace 2D film, which is what Cameron has been advocating.

Now, I respect Cameron as a talented filmmaker, but the guy's a gadget geek and furthermore possessed of no small ego. Part of me wonders whether "Avatar" is being shot the way it is at the budget it has simply because Cameron wants to be in the history books as the guy who revolutionized film, and he hasn't spared a thought to how this might damage the art form. Basically, he (and Jeffrey Katzenberg) is trying to make a decision for ALL of us, and that pisses me the hell off.

The film industry as it currently stands is facing a breaking point. Seriously, everything is on the verge of changing, and change is never pretty for the old guard. DVD has plateaued and there's no new home video format in sight. Plus, now everybody's getting into the act, from amateurs like me to labels digging out niche material, all of it fighting for shelf space and making it that much harder to exploit the back catalog on home video. The flaws in the star system model become more apparent with each passing day as budgets rise and returns shrink. Theater attendance keeps declining. Digital distribution offers a glimmer of hope but there's an unavoidable democratization of 2D film, inspired by "long tail" marketing, just-in-time distribution, and ever-cheaper and more-powerful electronic equipment. The studios are huge, and have a very loud voice...but there's no denying they've had to raise their voice to be heard over the years, and that's only going to get worse. Marketing budgets are ballooning as they fight with each other and damn near everyone else to even get their advertising heard.

This is the real appeal of 3D to Katzenberg; it will take the amateurs and small-time shops out of the equation, and offer some sensationalism.


But it won't fix theater attendance. The problem there has to do with the theaters themselves. Policies aren't enforced, the theaters themselves are generic, and increasingly, theaters are located not in urban centers but in the suburbs, thus removing them further and further from population centers.

Let's look at this from a customer's perspective: you have to commute to a theater, so already you're out subway fare or gas money. You pay about half what the DVD would cost and two to three times the cost to just rent it from a video store (far less if you have Netflix), to sit in a theater that's probably not particularly clean. Your fellow patrons might be rude, arguably something you can bank on with a popular film. The print itself might easily be in worse shape than the DVD transfer. The movie itself might not even be worth the money, or you could have a lousy audience experience.

In a way, legal digital downloads are actually going to exacerbate theater attendance problems. You won't even have to go to the video store. I happen to think that VOD as the studios want it will never happen, but I also think VOD is the future of rentals.

Do you see installing a new projection process changing ANY of this? It might temporarily boost attendance as people check out the new novelty, but I don't see it putting asses in seats on a permanent basis. The novelty is going to wear off and we'll be right back where we started, if the cost hasn't broken the theater owners.


Furthermore, what is the artistic benefit to current 2D films? The only argument I've heard can be boiled down to: it looks neat.

OK, and? I have not heard a compelling artistic reason we should change the entire film medium. "It looks neat" cuts no ice. I find it appalling our hosts are all for making films 3D and have yet to offer a compelling reason beyond "it looks neat" to do so. I'm sure when Turner decided to start colorizing black-and-white films, the staff on this site shit bricks. Making a 2D film 3D is no different.


None of this is to say I think Hollywood will cease to exist, or that 3D film shouldn't be explored. Hollywood, at least in some form, will always be with us. And I think 3D film has potential as a new medium that has yet to be fully explored; I'd love to see what would happen if we got, say, David Lynch in there to play with these new toys.

But I'm terrified that in an attempt to enshrine their egos or recapture something quite possibly permanently lost, that they'll irreparably damage an art form I love in the process. I don't want that to happen.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Fievel on Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:53 am

Is Cameron egotistical? Sure.
Do i think that this venture of his is egotistical? Not really.
Especially given the potential scope of his next couple of projects, I think he's viewing himself as somewhat of a cinematic explorer. He has the money to buy the toys, why not go out and see what he can do with it? 3D isn't something he just thought of doing two months ago. He's obviously been tinkering with itfor quite some time now.
I think he feels this is the best time to do it. He's had his fun with standard 2D films. He's done the documentary thing. He's received his golden statues. He wants to do something else, something new. And given how vocal he has been about it since he did his documentary in the format, other people have been listening. Other people have been listening, thinking on their own, incorporating his ideas, crunching numbers, etc. etc. It's likely a viable business.. if the films are good.

You mentioned a lot of recent 3D failures. All of them were youth-oriented films. I want to see 3D aimed for adults, and not necessarily laden with sex scenes (save the goodies for 3D porn!). I grew up in the 80's where the only 3D that I remember happening was the Friday The 13th 3D film and Jaws 3D. Both took the same approach - make the same crappy film and every so often throw up some gratuitous 3D scene where a character throws something at the screen. That's not the kind of 3D I want to see. I want to see what Moriarity did - I want to see the 3D LOTR and Star Wars. I want to see ordinary scenes that look completely three dimensional as well as scenes that are greatly accented by the technology.

Like the Playstation 3, eventually the price of the technology will come down. Sure at first it'll be ridiculously expensive, but over time it'll come down.

What about 2D? I don't have a direct answer. What I will say is something that I'm saying in another venue that's completely unrelated (competitive marching music... I did say it was unrelated). When I was young, I used to think/dream about what the future was going to be like. Very rarely was it an older version of what I was experiencing at the time. Instead, I would dream about flying cars, holograms, video phones, things of that sort. Well, slowly some of those things I'd dream about are coming to be. Technology is progressing at an exponential rate, and we're in a lucky position to watch the world change with it. I think the cinematic experience and movies themselves are going to be affected by this ultimately.

Remember Back To The Future 2 when Marty walks by the marquee for the latest Jaws movie (directed by Max Speilberg) and the holographic shark tries to eat him? That is like my childhood vision of the future.

It's late, and I'm tangenting to a point of nonsense. I'd best stop before I start talking about my mother or abusive priests.

3D doesn't upset me. A complete 3D revolution/evolution doesn't upset me. Bring it on I say. Let's see what the fuss is all about.
Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12158
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Postby Theta on Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:46 pm

Like I said, I have no objection to 3D film, but I have EVERY objection to how Cameron and Katzenberg, et. al., want to implement it.

Cameron's ego undeniably comes into play here. It's not HIS $315 million he's gambling with.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby havocSchultz on Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:27 pm

So, from what I understand - there's gonna be what, about 7000 3D screens by this time...

But they can't share them?!?!

Katzenberg apparentely says he has to have/needs 6000 screens...

That's insane...
Most wide releases now get somewhere in the 3000's...
And I believe there's been a few that crept over 4000...I might be mistaken...

But 6000 screens...
I guess by that time movies will only be in theatres for 2 weeks before hitting DVD...so they need EVERYBODY to go on the first weekend...

For some reason I find this arguably more disturbing then the whole 3D thing...or both together as a whole are a little worrisome...



ETA: Here's what I could find for a list of films that have been released in more than 4000 screens...

(The prominent number displayed is the most amount of screens it showed on...not just originally released on...)





Over the Hedge: 4059 4093

Shark Tale: 4016 4070

Mission: Impossible III: 4054 4059

Superman Returns: 4065 4065

Madagascar: 4131 4142

Spider-Man 2: 4152 4166

Shrek 2: 4163 4223

Pirates of the
Caribbean: DMC:
4133 4133



6000?!?!?!?!
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Theta on Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:46 pm

Well, I KNOW Avatar has to open on that many screens. It's just a matter of math; they need to have the maximum number of screens possible to get that huge opening weekend. Still, you're right. That's amazingly ambitious. I doubt any of the threequels opening in May are going to have that many screens.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Re: I hope "Avatar" and "Monsters and Aliens&

Postby Al Shut on Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:09 pm

Theta wrote:Last question first: it creates a whole new medium. Just like silent film has different language and grammar than sound film, so 3D film will need different language and grammar to differentiate itself from 2D film (not that I think this'll be forthcoming at first, not until the experimental types get their hands on it.) But just like CGI shouldn't replace traditional animation, so 3D film shouldn't replace 2D film, which is what Cameron has been advocating.


So would you also say that sound movies shouldn't have replaced silent movies?

Just curious.
Note to myself: Fix this image shit!
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6227
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Postby buster00 on Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:23 pm

I don't mind a 3-D movie now and then. It's something to do at like Disney World.

But yeah, it's always a little blurry and I wouldn't wanna watch 'em all the time.
User avatar
buster00
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6401
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:12 pm

Postby Fievel on Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:22 pm

buster00 wrote:I don't mind a 3-D movie now and then. It's something to do at like Disney World.

But yeah, it's always a little blurry and I wouldn't wanna watch 'em all the time.


Captain Eo? :lol:

I get the feeling that this new technology of which they speak will remove the blur.
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12158
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Postby buster00 on Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:04 pm

I liked Captain Eo! I saw it at Disneyland once when I was trippin'. It was teh awsumz.

I saw one at Hershey Park in Pennsylvania too. It's this elaborate 3-D candy commercial, but it was entertaining enough. That actually sums up the entire city of Hershey, Pennsylvania pretty much.
User avatar
buster00
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6401
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:12 pm

Re: I hope "Avatar" and "Monsters and Aliens&

Postby Theta on Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:24 am

Al_Shut wrote:So would you also say that sound movies shouldn't have replaced silent movies?

Just curious.


No, although honestly the silents were tossed out with unseemly haste, especially in light of how sound was such an artistic setback in terms of visuals (you couldn't move the camera in a sound picture at first.) Ideally they would have coexisted; imagine a world where Buster Keaton was able to keep making silents and didn't have to transition to sound!

It's actually a bad comparison for me to use because ultimately the silent techniques were incorporated as sound gear became lighter and more mobile, and as sound became unmoored from the scene (i.e. filmmakers realized that you didn't need to show the person speaking for the sound to make sense to the audience.)

A better example is black-and-white versus color, although that's not really a case of different mediums. Black-and-white wasn't summarily tossed out the window when color came along. They happily coexisted (at least at first). But they have different demands, in terms of lighting, set and costume design, etc. In color, for example, an actor can literally let the costume do the acting (think Sirk), but black-and-white...not so much.

Basically, 2D is like painting, and 3D kind of has to be more like moving sculpture. In terms of design, acting (I can see it demanding very careful consideration at the physical level), and camera movement (with 3D you're going to have more complicated modelling and more information shown to the audience), it really is a completely different medium. We don't even know what audiences will accept in terms of running time!

I want coexistence. I'm just afraid that ego, stupidity and greed will choke off 2D film, and then 3D film will be rejected.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby havocSchultz on Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:24 am

Yeah, but really, do you think they'll make stuff like this weekend's In The Land of Women a 3D film?

And stuff like that?
Wouldn't it just to be too difficult and expensive for all the small films to convert?

So yeah, when it comes to Blockbusters and Big Budget Event films, eventually, it might all go the way of 3D...

But I still think for awhile, small character pieces, dramas, comedies, independents will still mostly go the normal 2D route...

So we should still get some sort of coexistence...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Theta on Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:07 am

havocSchultz wrote:Yeah, but really, do you think they'll make stuff like this weekend's In The Land of Women a 3D film?


Well, why does it even need to be 3D in the first place? Why does even a huge blockbuster NEED to be 3D? It doesn't. Hollywood's just trying to fight sinking attendance with gimmicks.

That's what pisses me off about Cameron, he's pushing it as the future of movies yet he obviously thinks every damn movie is a huge event like his.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Fievel on Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:31 am

Theta wrote:Well, why does it even need to be 3D in the first place? Why does even a huge blockbuster NEED to be 3D? It doesn't. Hollywood's just trying to fight sinking attendance with gimmicks.


Why do films need to be 2D if all the tools are there for realistic-looking 3D films? Film is a visual medium. Why NOT use everything available? I'm not just taking the counter-point to be a penis with a keyboard. I honestly think the future will lie in 3D, and eventually without glasses.
User avatar
Fievel
Mouse Of The House
 
Posts: 12158
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: White Lake, MI

Postby Theta on Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:41 pm

Fievel wrote:
Why do films need to be 2D if all the tools are there for realistic-looking 3D films? Film is a visual medium. Why NOT use everything available? I'm not just taking the counter-point to be a penis with a keyboard. I honestly think the future will lie in 3D, and eventually without glasses.


For the record, you're asking me to defend a negative (which is technically impossible) and you're going to have to weigh in with a compelling argument for 3D. Your key problem, by the way, is going to be explaining why it's necessary.

I have nothing against theaters having a 3D screen and movies being made for 3D. It's another tool in the toolbox, like color, sound, widescreen, etc. I just think that a wholesale change, like some want, is stupid and being attempted for the wrong reasons, namely to maintain a failing ogliarchy and as a gimmick to boost attendance. That pisses me off. Is it broken? From some perspectives, yes. Will slapping a fresh coat of paint on it fix it? No.

If artists and audiences were clamoring for it, that'd be one thing. But they're not. And, honestly, I'm fairly sure they won't because they've had plenty of opportunity to pipe up. Advances in film are all-or-nothing propositions; when sound came along, it was all audiences wanted. "The Jazz Singer" didn't come out and tank, only for the technology to be revived; people loved it. Similarly, when color came along, it was expensive, but very popular with audiences. Widescreen? Surround Sound? Likewise.

The same is true of filmmakers, for the most part. True, there were some crabs (and a few even had valid reason to be upset, such as being unable to move the camera or annoyance at having to adjust their techniques for a new filming ratio), but by and large the variety of options has been welcomed.

Think about this: aside from James Cameron, Robert Rodriguez, and Robert Zemeckis...has ANY filmmaker of note jumped in and "Yeah, 3D is awesome! Let's make everything 3D!"? Maybe there have, but I can't seem to think of any. I seem to remember Spielberg being rather neutral on the subject, but that's about it. More to the point, look at how 3D films have done at the box office (hint: not well, even 3D "adaptations" of past or current hits.)

Will it bring audiences back? Maybe. For a while.

But I am, bluntly, extremely skeptical that 3D is the future and even if it is, I think that future should be up for more discussion than those pushing 3D want to allow for.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Cha-Ka Khan on Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:44 am

3D has changed a lot recently... I wrote this in my review of "Meet the Robinsons":
Cha-Ka Khan wrote:First off, I'd like to say that Disney Digital 3D, or "Real 3D" as it's called when it's not a Disney picture, is TOTALLY the way to go for 3D movies. It's really fantastic. I was doing a little bit of reading on it, because I was curious to know how it works, and it turns out that the system has 2 major advantages over previous systems. The first is that the glasses are circularly polarized, as opposed to linearly polarized, which allows you to move your head around in various positions without losing the 3D or getting the "ghosting" effect that is common in older systems. I can definitely attest to the fact that this was the case. The other advantage is that it uses a single digital projector instead of two synchronized film projectors with polarized lenses. In this case, an LCD device sits on the front of the digital project and polarizes the picture instead. The picture is displayed at 144 frames per second, and so the polarizer flips back and forth between the left and right frames 6 times per second. The end result is that when you have the glasses on, your left eye and right eye never see the same image, and your brain blurs the two together to make the 3D view. Again, this is a more precise method compared to traditional 3D systems, where usually the left and right images would "leak" into the other eye, causing ghosting, eyestrain, and headaches.

If any of you saw "Chicken Little," "The Nightmare Before Christmas," or "Monster House," they all used the same system. For a CGI film that can render both views and then display it on a digital project, it's really astounding... big thumbs up on the 3D from me!


I know Theta says that the 3D Nightmare Before Christmas tanked, but if you actually saw it in 3D it was fantastic. It really brought focus to the stop-motion and helped to (literally) put things in perspective.

I've seen a lot of 3D movies, from the old red&blue anaglyphs to the polarized lenses, to IMAX 3D to the new Real 3D, and it has improved dramatically, with Real 3D probably being about as unobtrusive as it can get while still wearing glasses. I can understand why Cameron, Rodriguez, and Zemecki's are so excited about it. It's a gimmick, and they're gimmick-geeks. They're modern-day William Castles. It's all about getting butts in seats and making the money. It's about giving people a spectacle... not necessarily great filmmaking, although I credit Cameron for trying to make an interesting concept movie.
User avatar
Cha-Ka Khan
UNGRATEFUL BASTARD
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:55 am

Postby Theta on Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:01 am

Cha-Ka Khan wrote:
I know Theta says that the 3D Nightmare Before Christmas tanked, but if you actually saw it in 3D it was fantastic. It really brought focus to the stop-motion and helped to (literally) put things in perspective.


I'm sure from a strictly technical perspective this was fascinating, although I'm afraid of what will happen to the 2D prints. I meant tanked financially, which I find telling because "Nightmare" is popular and beloved among precisely the market that would embrace this technology.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby silentbobafett on Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:01 am

Theta, firstly, great opening piece. Why is this in teh EFBR room? It really should beopened up to the main room. Very compelling stuff... mods?

Anyway. Theta, I get your fear. I'm looking forward to 3D.

I think you are to, but you don't want every film in 3D.

BUt I don't think that will EVER happen.

Can you imagein a Shane Meadows or a Todd Solondz film in 3D?

No, I think summer block busters might become 3D. And people will ALWAYS moan at them for being shit and money making experiments only, whether they're in 3D,2D or fucking Silent. People love to bug on them.

Well, I have no trouble with seeing Spiderman come thundering out of the screen. He pretty much does anyway, why not up it a notch? Why not have transformer scrapping it out inches from your face?


It would be awesome!

Do I htink 3D will take over the whole medium? No. But maybe people thought that about colour film, I don't know.

BUt Theta, I'm pretty much on your side, but I welcome any new technology, as long as its used properly. Same with CGI, I hate all things being CGI! I love physical effects! But CGI is a beautiful tool when used properly!
silentbobafett
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2246
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: In The Night Garden...

Postby Theta on Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:17 am

silentbobafett wrote:Theta, firstly, great opening piece. Why is this in teh EFBR room? It really should beopened up to the main room. Very compelling stuff... mods?


I put it here so people could unload with both barrels if they felt like it. It's a touchy subject.

As for my concerns...granted, 7000 screens is going to be a fraction (a pretty substantial fraction, but still a fraction) of what's available for screening. My problem is that if "Avatar" takes off, I can EASILY see Shane Meadows and Todd Solondz forced into using 3D technology, if it brings in the audiences.

Or worse, marginalized on home video because their movies aren't "commercial." The worst-case-scenario is the artists are all stuck on DTV and Brett Ratner is allowed to run free and unfettered.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby silentbobafett on Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:36 am

As long as we get their films though!

I mean, as discussed in another current thread, I don't go to the cinema anyway beause its ruined by how they're looked after.

So if I could get Solondz and MEadows and all them dudes on DTV and get some huge ass kicked at the cinema with glasses, I'd go. And I think others would. And I think thats what they want

Cinema is for cinema, but if itmeans the "filmmakers" get to keep doing thier thing and the entertainers can do their thing. Then I'm happy!

But I really really really don't think 3D will ever fully take over 2D. I mean I just don't think it will.

And if it does, because people maybe have said the above about B&W, then we'll all get use to it.

I am in agreement with you. But if it ever did happen it would be in like 30 or 40 years time, totaly change over I mean.

Its not a ten year jobby, I really don't think! :-)
silentbobafett
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2246
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: In The Night Garden...

Postby Theta on Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:00 pm

silentbobafett wrote:
So if I could get Solondz and MEadows and all them dudes on DTV and get some huge ass kicked at the cinema with glasses, I'd go.


No theatrical release=no prestigious awards and no possible theatrical gross=shrinking budgets=marginalization. We'll hear of them, but it'll be extremely difficult for anyone else to discover them amid the noise. They'll be tossed in a pit and won't ever be allowed out.

I do think we're headed towards a DTV explosion, either way. The studios are already knuckles deep into the market but with sites like CustomFlix, it gets easier and easier to put your material out there every day. I don't imagine it'll be very long (ten years, maximum) before filmmaking becomes much more commonplace as a form of artistic expression, like writing.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby silentbobafett on Tue May 01, 2007 8:04 am

Theta wrote:
I do think we're headed towards a DTV explosion, either way. The studios are already knuckles deep into the market but with sites like CustomFlix, it gets easier and easier to put your material out there every day. I don't imagine it'll be very long (ten years, maximum) before filmmaking becomes much more commonplace as a form of artistic expression, like writing.


I hate that more than I hate anythign else! Because the amount of SHIT that will come out will drown ou tthe amount of good stuff!

I donn't mind DTV and its prospects. BUt the trouble with sites and channels allowing any old joe to make a video means that the chances of me sitting down and watching a good video/film is mininmal!

You can edit on any PC, everyone can film on their phones, cameras or camcorders and then whack it up some where.

I thin kthe acceptablity of such films for showing will drop.

I would rather see a 3D film from Hollywood than some drama by some 16 year old from "anywhere". Not because I'm a gentleman but because I've watched a 1001 shorts in my time and I've seen less than a hand full that are actually good. The more people with cameras the more shit I have to sift through.

I have been on youtube maybe 4 times, and two of them was to watch videos about my productions (cos I'm a big headed gentleman!)

But I more worried about the smaller end of the cale than teh Hollywood end. I don't think Hollywood willd rown out the "real" filmmakers. Otherwise they would have done that in the begining of the 80's and never given half of our favorite filmmakers money. Theys till give them money because there is a market for traditional films and also they love the awards!

A 3D film can win Best Picture oscar if its good, but chances are your "filmmaker" with a dramtic 2D film will scoop the award. And the studio head needs that in his resume as well as the box office at years end.
silentbobafett
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2246
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: In The Night Garden...

Postby Theta on Fri May 04, 2007 7:42 pm

silentbobafett wrote:
Theta wrote:
I do think we're headed towards a DTV explosion, either way. The studios are already knuckles deep into the market but with sites like CustomFlix, it gets easier and easier to put your material out there every day. I don't imagine it'll be very long (ten years, maximum) before filmmaking becomes much more commonplace as a form of artistic expression, like writing.


I hate that more than I hate anythign else! Because the amount of SHIT that will come out will drown ou tthe amount of good stuff!

I donn't mind DTV and its prospects. BUt the trouble with sites and channels allowing any old joe to make a video means that the chances of me sitting down and watching a good video/film is mininmal!

You can edit on any PC, everyone can film on their phones, cameras or camcorders and then whack it up some where.

I thin kthe acceptablity of such films for showing will drop.

I would rather see a 3D film from Hollywood than some drama by some 16 year old from "anywhere". Not because I'm a gentleman but because I've watched a 1001 shorts in my time and I've seen less than a hand full that are actually good. The more people with cameras the more shit I have to sift through.

I have been on youtube maybe 4 times, and two of them was to watch videos about my productions (cos I'm a big headed gentleman!)

But I more worried about the smaller end of the cale than teh Hollywood end. I don't think Hollywood willd rown out the "real" filmmakers. Otherwise they would have done that in the begining of the 80's and never given half of our favorite filmmakers money. Theys till give them money because there is a market for traditional films and also they love the awards!

A 3D film can win Best Picture oscar if its good, but chances are your "filmmaker" with a dramtic 2D film will scoop the award. And the studio head needs that in his resume as well as the box office at years end.



I'm actually unconcerned about any sort of tidal wave of shit. Trust me, a lot of the really bad filmmakers think "marketing" is shopping for food. You won't hear about them and probably won't see them. Plus, it's a good training ground. I'll actually be bringing a film to the market myself and doing my best to plug the hell out of it; it'll be interesting to see what happens with that.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Ribbons on Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:55 pm

DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., together with Paramount Pictures Corporation, a unit of Viacom Inc., announced today that Monsters vs. Aliens, DreamWorks Animation's first-ever film produced in stereoscopic 3-D technology, will be released into theatres on March 27, 2009. The film had been previously slated for its domestic release on May 15, 2009.

"I believe that next generation 3-D will make our CG films even more special and unique," said Jeffrey Katzenberg, Chief Executive Officer of DreamWorks Animation. "We are thrilled to have 'Monster vs. Aliens' as the first opportunity for audiences to enjoy this exciting new movie experience. Moving to a March release date, which has proven to be a great slot for family films, allows us to roll out our first 3-D project on the maximum amount of screens as the year's first big event film to hit the market in this new format."

"We are really excited to be distributing 'Monsters vs. Aliens,' the marriage of a new technology with the classic family entertainment audiences have come to expect and love from DreamWorks Animation," added Rob Moore, President of Worldwide Marketing and Distribution for Paramount Pictures. "This new immersive 3-D experience will fully exploit the latest in exhibition technology-and with the March 27 release date, we'll be able to take full advantage by showing it in as many theaters with this advanced 3-D capability as possible."

Monsters vs. Aliens, which reinvents the classic '50s monster movie into an irreverent modern day action comedy, is being directed by Conrad Vernon (Shrek 2) and Rob Letterman (Shark Tale), produced by Lisa Stewart (I Think I Love My Wife) and co-produced by Jill Hopper and Latifa Ouaou
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13986
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby Theta on Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:37 pm

Ribbons wrote:
DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., together with Paramount Pictures Corporation, a unit of Viacom Inc., announced today that Monsters vs. Aliens, DreamWorks Animation's first-ever film produced in stereoscopic 3-D technology, will be released into theatres on March 27, 2009. The film had been previously slated for its domestic release on May 15, 2009.

"I believe that next generation 3-D will make our CG films even more special and unique," said Jeffrey Katzenberg, Chief Executive Officer of DreamWorks Animation. "We are thrilled to have 'Monster vs. Aliens' as the first opportunity for audiences to enjoy this exciting new movie experience. Moving to a March release date, which has proven to be a great slot for family films, allows us to roll out our first 3-D project on the maximum amount of screens as the year's first big event film to hit the market in this new format."

"We are really excited to be distributing 'Monsters vs. Aliens,' the marriage of a new technology with the classic family entertainment audiences have come to expect and love from DreamWorks Animation," added Rob Moore, President of Worldwide Marketing and Distribution for Paramount Pictures. "This new immersive 3-D experience will fully exploit the latest in exhibition technology-and with the March 27 release date, we'll be able to take full advantage by showing it in as many theaters with this advanced 3-D capability as possible."

Monsters vs. Aliens, which reinvents the classic '50s monster movie into an irreverent modern day action comedy, is being directed by Conrad Vernon (Shrek 2) and Rob Letterman (Shark Tale), produced by Lisa Stewart (I Think I Love My Wife) and co-produced by Jill Hopper and Latifa Ouaou



"Classic family entertainment?" DreamWorks has been around for, what, a decade?

Either way, I guess the game of chicken was too much for somebody.
This comment is in no way meant to insist your opinion is wrong or be considered an edict, solely this poster's opinion. That said, you are still a fool and will kneel before me in supplication.
User avatar
Theta
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:57 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby King Of Nowhere on Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:28 pm

Not sure where to post this, so if the mods can find a better place, go for it, as long as you don't delete the bloody thread.

So, a few big movies have came out in 3D recently & i believe Disney has plans to release everything they do from now on in 3D(could be wrong).

So, does anyone think it'll catch on & almost all movies will be in 3D?
Is it too early to tell, or will 3D become the new color/colour?
Last edited by King Of Nowhere on Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
King Of Nowhere
SPAM Killer!
 
Posts: 6173
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:36 pm

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:31 pm

interesting topic, they have been doing a lot more of this lately. Lucas has said that he has plans to release the SW movies in 3D as well in the future.

No, I think it's a fad. It might gain momentum as a fun alternative way to see a flick, but I doubt that 3D will ever be the standard (as color is), at least unless the tech changes somehow. It's fun in certain circumstances though.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby RaulMonkey on Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:36 pm

Right now I think it's a gimmick. I would like to see a 3D technology that doesn't require the viewer to wear glasses. Can't they just put a big sheet of the material that the glasses are made out of over the screen? I don't see the handing out and collecting of glasses ever becoming a standard part of going to the movies. It's too much trouble. And there's always fingerprints or a little splash of Coke or something on them--so the quality of the image is affected by something the filmmakers and the projectionist have no control over.
User avatar
RaulMonkey
ZONE AMBASSADOR
 
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:12 am
Location: YYC

Postby papalazeru on Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:36 pm

*Removed for getting completely the wrong end of the stick*
Last edited by papalazeru on Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Postby Vegeta on Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:36 pm

Lord Voldemoo wrote:interesting topic, they have been doing a lot more of this lately. Lucas has said that he has plans to release the SW movies in 3D as well in the future.


:shock:

Dear Lord, that man is a whore... a total whore. How many times can he repackage those films. :roll:
User avatar
Vegeta
PARAGON OF VACUITY
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:22 am
Location: U.S.S.A.

Next

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron